Integrating Protected Area Management with Local Needs and Aspirations

Wells, Michael P.; McShane, Thomas O.

doi:10.1639/0044-7447(2004)033[0513:ipamwl]2.0.co;2

Cited by 111 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other retrospective studies of protected area impacts in developing countries are currently in progress (Wilke et al 2006, 3 Even when forest products do not regularly contribute to local incomes, they may still serve as "safety nets," providing temporary income or subsistence materials in times of crisis (Wunder 2001, Pattanayak andSills 2001). 4 See Norton-Griffiths 1996, Ghimire and Pimbert 1997, Fortin and Gagnon 1999, Geisler and de Sousa 2001, Kaimowitz, Faune and Mendoza 2003, Brechin et al 2003, Wells and McShane 2004, Rudd 2004, Amend, Gascon and Reid 2007. See also additional references in , de Sherbinin 2008, Agrawal and Redford 2009 For instance Wittemeyer et al 2008 finds that population growth rates have been higher near parks, but this is not a direct measure of well-being (and the methodology has been criticized, see Joppa, Loarie and Pimm 2009).…”

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation and development: Evidence from Thai protected areas

Sims

2010

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation and development: Evidence from Thai protected areas

Sims

2010

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We argue that the 'half earth' idea does not get to the root of the problems it seeks to address, and would have serious negative impacts both on people (particularly poor people) and likely also biodiversity. If the current environmental crisis calls for radical thinking, there are different and, we believe, better possibilities that should be taken seriously by conservationists and other actors.First, the most basic problem with the 'half earth' proposal is that it ignores the powerful engines of resource extraction and consumption that are the main drivers of biodiversity loss globally (Wells and McShane 2004;Vandermeer and Perfecto 2005;CBD, 2014). A plan for the future of biodiversity that does nothing to address the over-consumption of resources in industrialized and emerging economies makes unrealistic assumptions about the extent to which 'nature's half' can be managed in isolation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications

Büscher

Fletcher

Brockington

et al. 2016

Oryx

246

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We question whether the increasingly popular, radical idea of turning half the earth into a network of protected areas is either feasible or just. We argue that this 'half earth' plan would have widespread negative consequences for human populations and would not meet its conservation objectives. It offers no agenda for managing biodiversity within a 'human half' of Earth. We call instead for alternative radical action that is both more effective and more equitable, focused directly on the main drivers of biodiversity loss by shifting the global economy from its current foundation in growth while simultaneously redressing inequality. Main TextThere is a new call to extend conservation frontiers as an ultimate attempt to save global biodiversity. Under the slogan 'nature needs half' (http://natureneedshalf.org/) and spearheaded by leading conservation scientists such as Edward O. Wilson (2016), Reed Noss (Noss et al, 2012), George Wuerthner and John Terborgh (Wuerthner et al, 2015), a vision has been formulated to turn half of the earth into a series of interconnected protected areas. This radical plan for conservation seeks to expand and strengthen the world's current network of protected areas to create a patchwork grid of reserves encompassing at least half the world's surface and hence "about 85 percent" of remaining biodiversity (Wilson, 2016). We wish to open up debate about this idea. While it might be interpreted as simply a rhetorical challenge to provoke greater conservation effort, it is proposed by senior scientific figures and is being widely discussed and supported. Critical reflection about this proposal is thus important.The plan proposed is staggering in scale: protected areas, according to the IUCN, currently incorporate around 15.4% of the earth's terrestrial areas and 3.4% of its oceans. They would thus need to more than triple in extent on land and by more than ten-fold in the oceans. Not only would this include the earth's currently still relatively intact ecosystems and natural habitats, it would also necessarily entail an active programme of restoration and 'rewilding' to 2 return larger areas to a more pristine 'pre-human' baseline (Wilson, 2016;Noss et al, 2012;Donlan et al, 2005). E. O. Wilson is arguably most explicit in his recent book Half-Earth, stating that "only by setting aside half the planet in reserve, or more, can we save the living part of the environment and achieve the stabilization required for our own survival" (Wilson, 2016: 3).Other conservationists agree that such a goal is the 'only defensible target' from a 'strictly scientific point of view' to allow for a sustainable future (Wuerthner et al, 2015: 18).These proposals seem to be driven by the credo 'desperate times call for desperate measures'. We agree with Wilson and other conservationists that because biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate as a result of human activity therefore urgent need for action to address this. Desperate times, however, demand careful decisions. We argue that the 'hal...

show abstract

“…To summarize, participation of local stakeholders in the course of protected area planning, establishment, and development is crucial for the successful implementation of the conservation goals (Wells and McShane 2004;Bobo and Weladji 2011). Ignorance and insufficient consideration of socio-economic shifts seed mistrust within the local populace, leading to a negative influence upon the implementation of conservation goals.…”

Section: Evolution Of the Negative Attitude Of Stakeholders Arising Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compensation Payments for Downsides Generated by Protected Areas

Pechacek

Guo

et al. 2012

AMBIO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas are powerful instruments to tackle the biodiversity crises. However, local communities believe that protected areas generate downsides for which they should be compensated. We reviewed (1) problem evolution, (2) the idea of compensation schemes, and (3) practical considerations. We found that compensations for conservation-related losses are insufficiently considered when protected areas are established. Schemes include controversial resettlements of human populations, traditional reimbursements, and recently favored incentive payments to encourage local communities to conserve biodiversity on their lands. The compensation process is typically composed of the verification of losses/facts, estimation of costs, and delivery of payments. Compensation schemes promote tolerance and awareness, and responsibility of the broader society while minimizing confrontations. They have the power to mainstream concern about human welfare in protected area management, and are therefore a key to successful conservation. Verifying the impact of compensations on achievement of conservation goals remains, however, difficult to prove.

show abstract

Integrating Protected Area Management with Local Needs and Aspirations

Cited by 111 publications

References 18 publications

Conservation and development: Evidence from Thai protected areas

Conservation and development: Evidence from Thai protected areas

Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications

Compensation Payments for Downsides Generated by Protected Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About